| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2008 06:09:41 AM · #26 |
Juliet, I think the announcement made in October 2007 (see Judi's link and my link) is pretty clear that it is illegal. Up until just recently there was a note in the top left hand corner of the front page stating that it was illegal to use Photomatix, Lucis Arts etc in basic.
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Ar but Raish, Neil said it was illegal to use, then he was reminded by another SC member that it was legal. So which is it!???? lol |
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 06:11:24 AM · #27 |
It gets complicated. Basic editing is, pretty obviously, about doing as little as possible after the shot is taken. Tone mapping sort of contradicts that. Unfortunately the terms of definition, ie 'only processes that affect all of the pixels in the picture' begin to look as though they allow tone mapping as provided by eg Photoshop.
Photomatix is illegal but you might get away with it.
Tone mapping is in principle contrary to the idea of basic editing.
You decide. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 06:23:55 AM · #28 |
Juliet
The SC announcement was extremely clear and said tonemapping using Photomatix was illegal in basic. Yes, there was discussion post announcement and some SC suggested they didn't believe it was illegal on principal, but the announcement and the marker announcement on the left side of the homepage was pretty clear.
My issue is that the announcement on the side of the homepage is gone now and the language "LucisArts, Photomatix and Virtual Photographer are NOT PERMITTED to be used under the basic rule set" has not been added to the basic rules set.
How are people to know these are not allowed if you are relatively new to the site or were not around during time when the announcements were first published?
SC - Please update the ruleset to reflect the actuality of what is allowed and not allowed.
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Ar but Raish, Neil said it was illegal to use, then he was reminded by another SC member that it was legal. So which is it!???? lol |
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 07:28:03 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by bassbone:
SC - Please update the ruleset to reflect the actuality of what is allowed and not allowed. |
Thanks, Peter, yeah...I'd have to say, after looking over the Admin announcement thread, it does seem clear that Photomatix in Basic is not allowed. Problem is, who checks the forums for Challenge rules? I checked the Basic Rules page. Heck, I must have a severe case of short-term memory loss...I was the second post in that thread! lol.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 09:43:47 AM · #30 |
[
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Ar but Raish, Neil said it was illegal to use, then he was reminded by another SC member that it was legal. So which is it!???? lol |
He was reminded that it was covered under "effects filters." Effect filters are illegal in basic.
Historically, we have tried to avoid naming specific software or effects in the rules because it could get quite cumbersome very quickly (there is a lot of stuff out there). |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 10:41:36 AM · #31 |
| I see!!!! interesting!!! thank you !! |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 10:48:15 AM · #32 |
This is all still begging the question of why, if tone mapping in photomatix is illegal, is tone mapping in CS2/3 via shadow/highlight allowed? The inconsistency bugs the heck out of me. I did the following crappy image in a basic challenge not long ago just to prove you COULD "legally" tone map-to-excess using S/H:
R.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 10:51:36 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by karmat:
[
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Ar but Raish, Neil said it was illegal to use, then he was reminded by another SC member that it was legal. So which is it!???? lol |
He was reminded that it was covered under "effects filters." Effect filters are illegal in basic.
Historically, we have tried to avoid naming specific software or effects in the rules because it could get quite cumbersome very quickly (there is a lot of stuff out there). |
Are we to assume this interpretation has been taken into consideration when examining images when submitted for verification?
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 11:03:58 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is all still begging the question of why, if tone mapping in photomatix is illegal, is tone mapping in CS2/3 via shadow/highlight allowed? The inconsistency bugs the heck out of me. I did the following crappy image in a basic challenge not long ago just to prove you COULD "legally" tone map-to-excess using S/H:
R. |
Doesn't beg the question, raises the question. Apologies for my pedantry. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 11:13:08 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by raish:
Doesn't beg the question, raises the question. Apologies for my pedantry. |
Yah, you got me... Common usage accepts what I did, but it's not correct I grant you... ;-)
R.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 11:25:06 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I did the following crappy image in a basic challenge not long ago just to prove you COULD "legally" tone map-to-excess using S/H... |
Yes, and you could also use Curves or HSL in excess to produce an effect. Unfortunately, Basic is tools-based (currently), so we can't just prohibit excessive use. We allow tools normally used to "clean up" an image while preserving image integrity, and prohibit those that are selective or normally used as an effect. Photomatix can be used to correct exposure, of course, but it works a little differently from Shadow/Highlight. Whereas S/H adjusts all matching values equally throughout the image, Photomatix also takes local contrast into consideration, so a 50% gray in one area can be very different from a 50% gray in another area depending upon the surroundings. I believe this selective treatment is what got Photomatix booted- it's akin to allowing color channel desaturation in Basic (globally changing red the same way throughout the image), but not selective desaturation, even though they can often produce identical results. Personally, I'd rather allow Photomatix, Nik Tools and others in a "corrective" manner and just ban effects, but that takes Basic away from tool-based guidelines and involves the unpopular element of subjectivity.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 11:26:34. |
|
|
|
07/17/2008 10:22:49 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by karmat:
He was reminded that it was covered under "effects filters." Effect filters are illegal in basic.
Historically, we have tried to avoid naming specific software or effects in the rules because it could get quite cumbersome very quickly (there is a lot of stuff out there). |
That's understandable, karmat, but why not at least add the "major" ones? While I remember the thread on this now (after having my memory refreshed), when I submitted a Photomatix-tonemapped RAW file in the Rural Landscape II challenge, I specifically checked the basic editing page to make sure I wasn't submitting a DQ-able image. Since Photomatix is not an effect filter, by any standard definition (with apologies to scalvert's informative post above), I went ahead with the submission.
...and now I have a DQ. :-(
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:15:02 PM EDT.
